E-DRUG: Novartis files fresh case (2)
May the Almighty forgive the Novartis for they did not know what they were
doing. Having learnt the lesson, now we expect them to exist in the interest of
humanity and not to repeat the anti-people work. We pray that may enlightened
thinking prevail and prosper in decision makers of Novartis.
Dr Vijay Thawani,
On Sun, 12 Aug 2007 E-Drug wrote :
>E-DRUG: Novartis files fresh case
>[Copied as fair use. Thanks to Gopal Dabade for forwarding to E-drug. WB]
>THE HINDU, 10th August 2007
>High Court stays Novartis appeal
>CHENNAI: All further proceedings on the statutory appeals filed by Novartis,
>challenging the rejection of its patent application, pending before the
>Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) were stayed by the Madras High
>Court on Thursday.
>The First Bench comprising Chief Justice A.P. Shah and Justice P. Jyothimani
>granted the interim relief on a writ petition filed by Novartis AG stating
>that the IPAB had erred in dismissing its plea to exclude its Technical Member
>S. Chandrasekaran from hearing its statutory appeals.
>The Bench has posted the matter to September 10 for further proceedings.
>Novartis? application to patent the beta crystalline form of imatinib mesylate
>was rejected by Chennai Patent Office in January 25, 2006. In April 2007, the
>High Court transferred the statutory appeals to the IPAB after a Technical
>Member was appointed and the Board became functional.
>When the IPAB took up the appeal for hearing, Novartis sought to exclude Mr.
>Chandrasekaran from the Bench, on the ground that he had filed a
>counter-affidavit in support of the Union of India and the Controller-General
>of Patents and Designs and hence he would be biased against Novartis. In July
>2007, the IPAB rejected the objections. The present writ petition challenges
>the rejection of its objections.
>Describing the timing of appointment of Mr. Chandrasekaran as significant, the
>company said the IPAB had erred in rejecting its plea to request the Centre to
>appoint another member in lieu of Mr. Chandrasekaran.
>The January 25, 2006 order rejecting Novartis? patent application was passed
>by the Assistant Controller under the aegis of the erstwhile
>Controller-General Chandrasekaran, the petitioner said, adding that he had
>deposed an affidavit against Novartis in High Court before becoming a
>Technical Member of the IPAB. It said he would ?suffer from a prejudiced
>mindset and would not be able to apply his mind in an independent fashion.? It
>said, ?It is well nigh impossible to expect that a person with an indelible
>mindset will be able to serve as an unbiased Technical Member (Patent).?
>It sought to quash the IPAB order and consequently direct the Board to remove
>Mr. Chandrasekaran from acting as a Technical Member (Patent) to hear the
>appeal and direct the Centre to appoint another Technical Member in his place.
>© Copyright 2000 - 2006 The Hindu
>Building a website is a piece of cake. Yahoo! Small Business gives you all the
>tools to get online.
>Post message: firstname.lastname@example.org
>Info & archives: http://list.healthnet.org/mailman/listinfo/e-drug
Join in Network for Rational Use of Medicines (NetRUM) E-discussions at
20-22 Aug: Should doctors accept free gifts, tours,money ? Moderator - Dr Vijay
23-29 Aug: Medicine promotion : Are we promoting science or sales?
Moderator - Dr Mira Desai
CME on Pharmacovigilance at GMC Nagpur,01 Sept 2007. 11 AM to 3 PM.
Registration fee Rs 100.
1.Dr M.P.Shrivastava : Pharmacovigilance:Need of the hour.
2.Dr Anurag Bhargava (Jan Swasthya Sahyog):Pills, prescriptions and prices: The
need for vigilance in India.